www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall About Vassula Ryden

Dear Amado,

I'm confused. The whole purpose of having Rome is to deal with confusion.

So what is the status of Vassula then in the eyes of Rome?

Is she like one of those new medications that are advertised on TV that treat a particular ailment, but have all sorts of side-effects?

Alex

Dear Alex,

I wish Adam (Kemner) would come back, as he knows more about this than I...

His point about official CDF statements being signed by Ratzinger or some other official is well taken. Neither of these have such signatures, and usually, EWTN's library is good about including those signatures.

But the second link has a reference to the fact that that clarification/notification/whatever was included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is a serious thing indeed. Also, it seems to answer the idea about Ratzinger's audience in Guadalajara. If Adam was here, he might be able to answer this...I too am confused.

Orthodoxy looks less confusing than dealing with Rome. Or is it? :p

Alex and Mor Ephrem:

There should not be any confusion here!

If you read the "Notification" and the subsequent "clarification" in their entirety, both clearly present the OFFICIAL POSITION of the Catholic Church regarding Mrs. Ryden.

Her case may be akin to "Bay Side," "Garabandal," "Medjugorje," and other phenomena not yet approved by the Catholic Church. It just takes time and incontrovertible proof.

As an aside, I notice that there seems to be a difficulty for some to accept the authenticity of any document "connected" with EWTN. In this instance, EWTN is just a "messenger"; it quotes Vatican curial documents.

Dear Amado,

Yes, but Bay Side has been condemned by the Church, has it not? Catholics are not to practice devotion to the apparitions of Bay Side, are they not?

And Medjugorje has likewise been nixed?

In any event, the fact that Vassula practices intercommunion is something that offends both East and West.

Alex

For my part, I have absolutely no problem with EWTN. I visit its website a few times daily, and when I'm home I watch their programming.

My problem in this case is simply this: when I normally read official documents of the CDF from their online library, they usually include the signatures of the officials who were behind it, and if it has been approved by the Pope, a note that it was thus approved. With the docs you gave links for, no such signature/note was present, and that squares with what Adam was saying about the documents not being official because of a lack of official signatures, thus meriting official sanction.

But, the fact that the second document includes information regarding the Guadalajara audience which Ratzinger had with devotees of Ryden's movement, confirming an opposing view to the story I heard, and the fact that it was published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis where all official documents end up getting published, leaves me confused. In essence, I have two sides of the same story. That's why I would like very much if Adam, who knows more about these things, would come back and respond to these points.

These points of confusion have nothing to do with "the messenger", namely, EWTN, from which I've benefitted greatly.

Dear Catholicos,

One of the fascinating points of divergence between East and West has been precisely the way in which private revelations have played themselves out in the devotional lives of the faithful.

Some have commented that there is a much greater emphasis on private revelations and private, para and non-liturgical devotions in the West, owing perhaps to an "alienation" from liturgical prayer for various reasons.

The East has maintained a strong emphasis on liturgical prayer, and when private revelations from holy monks have impacted Eastern Spirituality (e.g. St Macarius' revelations about the 40 days following death), these have become part of the liturgical mainstream, and were not allowed into a para-liturgical pattern.

I could be wrong, but it seems that Western Catholics have a much greater fascination with this Greek Orthodox seer than her own colleagues in faith.

Alex

I am not sure how to respond to Mor Ephrem's insistance that i respond. All I know is what i can remember from when the Notification first came out (I was a Freshman in High school, and distracted with other things ). All I can relate is what my parents told me then and now about it (they were on the board of the publishers of teh handwritten edition at the time). At the time, there was an overreaction to the Notification, many people read it as an official condemnation of the writings, when it called for prudence and discernment when reading these sorts of things, and a reminder that private revelation is just that, there has been no public revelation since the death of teh last Apostle.

Keep in mind that most such writtings are very controversial when they first appear (eg St Faustina's Diary, Lourdes), and Rome is slow to accept anything ( Fatima).